The theory holds that disease results from cumulative exposure across all sources, so each identifiable exposure contributed to the total dose that caused the disease. It is used to establish causation against defendants whose individual contribution was small.
It differs from the each and every exposure theory in acknowledging dose.
Alternative Names:
Cumulative Dose Theory, Total Dose Theory
Why it Matters?
Courts have divided on whether this theory is meaningfully different from the any-exposure approach or is the same argument restated with dose language. The defense position is that acknowledging cumulative dose without quantifying any defendant's contribution provides no basis for attributing causation to that defendant. Where a plaintiff expert cannot estimate what portion of the total a defendant supplied, the analytical gap objection applies.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
How does this differ from any-exposure theory?
What is the defense objection?
